Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one real behavioral constraint not present in annotations — the admin-only permission requirement — but says nothing about duplicate-name/slug handling, failure modes, or side effects, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the action and resource are front-loaded, and the permission constraint follows. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and access control, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of describing the created resource's response or duplicate handling, so it is not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'name' and 'slug' are documented in the schema, including that slug is auto-derived from name when omitted. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new company') plus the scope ('in the workspace'), which is enough to separate it from companies_update, companies_archive, and companies_get by action type. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the create verb is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a prerequisite ('Workspace admins only') that determines whether the agent may call the tool at all, which is useful gating information. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as companies_update (i.e. what to do if the company already exists), so usage is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.